alan shatter... inapropriate behavior

Bluefoam

I'm getting freaked out by Alan Shatter (justice minister), first he uses his office to promote his personal agenda on Isreal/Palastine and now he is making wholly inappropriate comments on Martin McGuinness as presidenial candidate.

I am not pro SF by any means. But I do find Shatters behavior to be above his remit. It is up to the Irish people to decide who is or isn't suitable to be president.

IMO Shatter needs to keep his mouth shut on issues outside the remit of his office. Bias is not a trait suitable for a justice minister... of all people

Kev_ps3

Its not surprising behavior from the west brit establishment elite. Its Lisbon all over again. Their scare mongering will put off alot of bubble head voters and it will be hard for him to win with all this propaganda.

Jesus Wept

What is this west brit ****? Anyone who dislikes McGuinness is a west brit? Pull the other one.

RandomName2

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Its not surprising behavior from the west brit establishment elite. Its Lisbon all over again. Their scare mongering will put off alot of bubble head voters and it will be hard for him to win with all this propaganda.

He's a zionist West-Brit europhile?

headmaster

It's very difficult for any Irish person to be spoken down to. How dare members of FG tell us the people of Ireland on the dangers of voting for ANYONE. We are very well read and don't need Shatter or Mitchell to tell us how to vote, or not to vote, in the upcoming election. One thing's for sure now and that is, FG have no chance now. As a matter of fact, Mitchel has questions to ask about his own family background, especially some of them in Holland.

dixiefly

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Its not surprising behavior from the west brit establishment elite. Its Lisbon all over again. Their scare mongering will put off alot of bubble head voters and it will be hard for him to win with all this propaganda.

Can you go one step further than McGuinness and define a west Brit?

The only thing McGuinness has going for him is the fact that he will take the average industrial wage as president. Something our current incumbent should have done last year and this year.

dixiefly

headmaster wrote: »

It's very difficult for any Irish person to be spoken down to. How dare members of FG tell us the people of Ireland on the dangers of voting for ANYONE. We are very well read and don't need Shatter or Mitchell to tell us how to vote, or not to vote, in the upcoming election. One thing's for sure now and that is, FG have no chance now. As a matter of fact, Mitchel has questions to ask about his own family background, especially some of them in Holland.

What are these questions?- Be specific.

tweedledee

FG are VERY VERY nervous.

jonniebgood1

Bluefoam wrote: »

I'm getting freaked out by Alan Shatter (justice minister), first he uses his office to promote his personal agenda on Isreal/Palastine and now he is making wholly inappropriate comments on Martin McGuinness as presidenial candidate.

I am not pro SF by any means. But I do find Shatters behavior to be above his remit. It is up to the Irish people to decide who is or isn't suitable to be president.

IMO Shatter needs to keep his mouth shut on issues outside the remit of his office. Bias is not a trait suitable for a justice minister... of all people

So a FG minister is criticising the partys oponents in a presidential campaign. If that freaks you then you are in for a tough couple of weeks until the polling day!

gandalf

Bloody hell people get labelled as "West Brits" because they quite rightly point out that a man who was an integral part of a terrorist organisation who denied this state in its current formats right to exists not so long ago is now running to be its head of state.

I think it is totally within the rights of any citizen of the Republic of Ireland to question a man who has been involved in murder, mayhem and criminality on this island that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocents and the injury of thousands more.

What smacks of desperation is the repeated throwing around by some supporters of Mr. McGuinness of the label of "West Brit" and the expectation that we all should nearly genuflect before him because he was part of a criminal enterprise that while started with noble aspirations descended into the sectarian quagmire of the organisations on the "other" side and towards the end of the troubles was nothing more than a Mafia like criminal organisation

We have every right to question this mans past and I laud Alan Shatter in coming out publicly and doing so, lets hope that all of our leaders come out and call this mans past to question because unlike some of the armchair keyboard republicans who inhabit this board I am not happy at all in having a criminal represent my country.

mikemac

It's not an Irish presidental election without some mud slinging, cheap shots and dirty tactics

Can't wait

Bluefoam

gandalf wrote: »

Bloody hell people get labelled as "West Brits" because they quite rightly point out that a man who was an integral part of a terrorist organisation who denied this state in its current formats right to exists not so long ago is now running to be its head of state.

I think it is totally within the rights of any citizen of the Republic of Ireland to question a man who has been involved in murder, mayhem and criminality on this island that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocents and the injury of thousands more.

What smacks of desperation is the repeated throwing around by some supporters of Mr. McGuinness of the label of "West Brit" and the expectation that we all should nearly genuflect before him because he was part of a criminal enterprise that while started with noble aspirations descended into the sectarian quagmire of the organisations on the "other" side and towards the end of the troubles was nothing more than a Mafia like criminal organisation

We have every right to question this mans past and I laud Alan Shatter in coming out publicly and doing so, lets hope that all of our leaders come out and call this mans past to question because unlike some of the armchair keyboard republicans who inhabit this board I am not happy at all in having a criminal represent my country.

There is a big difference between questioning and making blunt statements. As I stated, its up to the Irish people to assess the available information and then make a decision on the candidates.

super_furry

So what then? Don't mention the 'war'? Just ignore McGuinness' history as a terrorist? Seems too be what SF and their supporters want at least.

bmaxi

I too, am puzzled by the term "West Brit" and what exactly it encompasses. It used to describe the landed gentry but now,it appears, applies to anybody who doesn't subscribe to SF philosophy (whatever that is).
I don't agree with Shatter's position on Israel/Palestine but I understand that, as a Jew, he is likely to take the Israeli side, the same way as Irish America invariably took the Nationalist side during the troubles.
I would have expected him, or any other constitutional politician, to take the position he did an Mc Guinness, who after all, was (is) a leading member of an organisation committed to the overthrowing of the constitutional institutions of this state. I don't buy into the "poacher turned gamekeeper" image of Mc Guinness.

Kev_ps3

super_furry wrote: »

So what then? Don't mention the 'war'? Just ignore McGuinness' history as a terrorist? Seems too be what SF and their supporters want at least.

To the likes of you he was a terrorist, no doubt you wouldn't criticize the terrorism committed by the British Army on Irish people in the north. To real Irish people he was a freedom fighter, to English or west Brits he was a terrorist.

hardCopy

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

To the likes of you he was a terrorist, no doubt you wouldn't criticize the terrorism committed by the British Army on Irish people in the north. To real Irish people he was a freedom fighter, to English or west Brits he was a terrorist.

"Real" Irish people? Go away and sh1te.

My name is URL

I'm not a McGuinness supporter, but I did think that Shatter went a bit far by saying that he'd be inappropriate as president. As others have said, it's up to the people to decide.. and it's not as if the media and commentators are unlikely or unable to criticise and question McGuinness' past.. there's little need for government ministers to weigh in with their opinion, especially if they're only going to give an opinion on one of the candidates. What are his views on Norris, and how does he think the international media will portray Mitchell if he is elected president.. he's first cousin of one of the country's most notorious criminals after all. That'll look good on tabloids all over the world.

Pete_Cavan

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

To the likes of you he was a terrorist, no doubt you wouldn't criticize the terrorism committed by the British Army on Irish people in the north. To real Irish people he was a freedom fighter, to English or west Brits he was a terrorist.

It makes me sick to have people like this tell me what "real Irish people" are like. To my mind, "real Irish people" recognise the atrocities committed by both sides and dont use meaningless terms like "west Brit" to delude themselves and justify their ignorance.

Min

In the past Fine Gael ran a candidate for president who is suppose to have killed upto two dozen people.

There didn't seem to be a problem then for Fine Gael.

mikemac

Min wrote: »

In the past Fine Gael ran a candidate for president who is suppose to have killed upto two dozen people.

Who was this?

Benny_Cake

mikemac wrote: »

Who was this?

Probably this guy

To be honest this sort of thing is part and parcel of a presidential election.Everyone's past will be raked over and to think that McGuinness should only be judged on what he has done since 1998 is ludicrous.Calling people "west Brits" is infantile as well for that matter and will repel a lot of potential voters.

Bluefoam

super_furry wrote: »

So what then? Don't mention the 'war'? Just ignore McGuinness' history as a terrorist? Seems too be what SF and their supporters want at least.

Let's not turn this into another Martin McGuinness thread.

I have no problem with someone questioning his past, or even making specific accusations about his activities.

But Shatter hasn't done so, he has made a very specific statement about him without actually backing it up with specifics.

The issue here is about Shatter and his behaviour. Not anyone else...

The Waltzing Consumer

Bluefoam wrote: »

Let's not turn this into another Martin McGuinness thread.

I have no problem with someone questioning his past, or even making specific accusations about his activities.

But Shatter hasn't done so, he has made a very specific statement about him without actually backing it up with specifics.

The issue here is about Shatter and his behaviour. Not anyone else...

Not anyone else? Come on, if you are going to tell me that all parties and candidates are not going to make statements critical of other candidates, well, that would be a first in the history of politics. Shatter has done what plenty of FF, FG, SF, LAB, ULA will be doing, nothing different.

I think anyone has a right to be critical of any person who was associated with the murderers of Gardai and sought for their release in the not too distant past.

This is not "oh Michael D is a bit old, Dana is a bit crap or Gay Mitchell is a religious nut, this is a guy who was part of a group that rejected the Republic, and murdered our civilians and emergency forces". Before we say this was a different time and conditions, robbing postal vans and killing Gardai in Adare is not the same as being second class citizens in a protestant state and fighting for your basic human rights.

HellsAngel

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Not anyone else? Come on, if you are going to tell me that all parties and candidates are not going to make statements critical of other candidates, well, that would be a first in the history of politics. Shatter has done what plenty of FF, FG, SF, LAB, ULA will be doing, nothing different.

I think anyone has a right to be critical of any person who was associated with the murderers of Gardai and sought for their release in the not too distant past.

This is not "oh Michael D is a bit old, Dana is a bit crap or Gay Mitchell is a religious nut, this is a guy who was part of a group that rejected the Republic, and murdered our civilians and emergency forces". Before we say this was a different time and conditions, robbing postal vans and killing Gardai in Adare is not the same as being second class citizens in a protestant state and fighting for your basic human rights.

Gay Mitchell's Fine Gael did their bit in ignoring/covering up murders commited by Brit dirty tricks dept in Dublin and Monaghan 1974 and the special branch Heavy Gang in the 70's. Mitchell and FG are in no position to lecture anyone on ignoring the murder of Irish citizens.

The Waltzing Consumer

HellsAngel wrote: »

Gay Mitchell's Fine Gael did their bit in ignoring/covering up murders commited by Brit dirty tricks dept in Dublin and Monaghan 1974 and the special branch Heavy Gang in the 70's. Mitchell and FG are in no position to lecture anyone on ignoring the murder of Irish citizens.

This is not the conspiracy theory part of the site. Those claims are not credible in the slightest and have no substance behind them. It is certainly light weight to include that in the politics forum.

Was Gay Mitchell involved with a paramilitary group who, into the 90's, robbed postal vans and banks in the Republic, killed Gardai, and sought for their release of the murderers and refused to condemn the actions and repeatedly lied about their responsibility?

themont85

The guys just saying what the majority of the good thinking people of Ireland think.

Ald

I'd say there are three reasons for Alan Shatter's outrageous outburst:

1. Sinn Féin's support for Palestine. Alan Shatter being a Jew... Need I say more really?
2. Gay Mitchell hasn't a chance in hell and is being totally shawdowed by Mr. McGuinness and Norris.
3. If Mr. McGuinness does make it as President he will have powers to veto legislation and recommend it be reviewed. Mr. McGuinness is a dab hand with governmental processes and won't shy away from voicing his opinions I'm sure. How will that affect a FG government? I'm sure they're quaking in their boots. I'd put money on a major smear campaign in the week leading up to the 27th of October. I'm sure there will be intelligence leaks of some sort.

The Waltzing Consumer

Ald wrote: »

I'd say there are three reasons for Alan Shatter's outrageous outburst:

1. Sinn Féin's support for Palestine. Alan Shatter being a Jew... Need I say more really?
2. Gay Mitchell hasn't a chance in hell and is being totally shawdowed by Mr. McGuinness and Norris.
3. If Mr. McGuinness does make it as President he will have powers to veto legislation and recommend it be reviewed. Mr. McGuinness is a dab hand with governmental processes and won't shy away from voicing his opinions I'm sure. How will that affect a FG government? I'm sure they're quaking in their boots. I'd put money on a major smear campaign in the week leading up to the 27th of October. I'm sure there will be intelligence leaks of some sort.

1) yes you probably should say more. Becasue it looks terrible
2) Maybe, but I would not count any chickens yet
3) Jesus, Irish presidents do not have powers to veto :rolleyes: Can you read the constitution please?

Benny_Cake

Ald wrote: »

I'd say there are three reasons for Alan Shatter's outrageous outburst:

1. Sinn Féin's support for Palestine. Alan Shatter being a Jew... Need I say more really?
2. Gay Mitchell hasn't a chance in hell and is being totally shawdowed by Mr. McGuinness and Norris.
3. If Mr. McGuinness does make it as President he will have powers to veto legislation and recommend it be reviewed. Mr. McGuinness is a dab hand with governmental processes and won't shy away from voicing his opinions I'm sure. How will that affect a FG government? I'm sure they're quaking in their boots. I'd put money on a major smear campaign in the week leading up to the 27th of October. I'm sure there will be intelligence leaks of some sort.

Your first comment is beyond disgusting tbh.

Ald

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

1) yes you probably should say more. Becasue it looks terrible
2) Maybe, but I would not count any chickens yet
3) Jesus, Irish presidents do not have powers to veto :rolleyes: Can you read the constitution please?

1) Outright support for Israel seems to be a common trend within Jewish circles. Care to argue that?
2) I would put money on it. He has as much charisma as my ratty, moany auld neighbour has...
3) Yes, I have and in certain instances the President can refer and effectively veto legislation: "There are some specific instances where the President has an absolute discretion, such as in referring a Bill to the Supreme Court for a judgment on its constitutionality or in refusing to dissolve Dáil Éireann (lower house of parliament) on the advice of a Taoiseach (Prime Minister) who has ceased to retain a majority. Additional functions can be conferred on the President by law. A special (Presidential) Commission acts whenever the President is absent."

LLU

phrases like 'west brit' are not exactly appropriate language for a potential president to be using either.

Ald

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Your first comment is beyond disgusting tbh.

I didn't actually infer anything other than you would expect a Jew to be pro-Israel and hence anti-Palestine... P.C. brigade... Nee-nah, nee-nah...

The Waltzing Consumer

Ald wrote: »

1) Outright support for Israel seems to be a common trend within Jewish circles. Care to argue that?
2) I would put money on it. He has as much charisma as my ratty, moany auld neighbour has...
3) Yes, I have and in certain instances the President can refer and effectively veto legislation: "There are some specific instances where the President has an absolute discretion, such as in referring a Bill to the Supreme Court for a judgment on its constitutionality or in refusing to dissolve Dáil Éireann (lower house of parliament) on the advice of a Taoiseach (Prime Minister) who has ceased to retain a majority. Additional functions can be conferred on the President by law. A special (Presidential) Commission acts whenever the President is absent."

1) you said jew
2) great arguement there
3) where is veto mentioned? great fun copying and pasting, but none of that is a veto or has anything to do with a veto.

LordSutch

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

To real Irish people he was a freedom fighter, to English or west Brits he was a terrorist.

Absolute tosh of the highest order :rolleyes:

Who the hell are you & SF to question who 'Real Irish people are' who are you to say that McGuinness is a freedom fighter (instead of a terrorist), and if we disagree with you we are West Brits (whatever thet means) or we are English

Get a life man, and stopped being brainwashed by Sinn Fein propeganda.

Nodin

Ald wrote: »

1) Outright support for Israel seems to be a common trend within Jewish circles. Care to argue that?
2................."

Yes actually, I do.
http://jfjfp.com/

Alan Shatter should be treated as an individual not some representative of a hive mind.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

Absolute tosh of the highest order :rolleyes:

Who the hell are you & SF to question who 'Real Irish people are' who are you to say that McGuinness is a freedom fighter (instead of a terrorist), and if we disagree with you we are West Brits (whatever thet means) or we are English

Get a life man, and stopped being brainwashed by Sinn Fein propeganda.

You see no parallel between your consistent references to SF supporters being "brainwashed" and stereotypes being employed by others?

RandomName2

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

To the likes of you he was a terrorist, no doubt you wouldn't criticize the terrorism committed by the British Army on Irish people in the north. To real Irish people he was a freedom fighter, to English or west Brits he was a terrorist. [my emphasis]

I am beginning to question your patriotism.

round tower huntsman

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

To the likes of you he was a terrorist, no doubt you wouldn't criticize the terrorism committed by the British Army on Irish people in the north. To real Irish people he was a freedom fighter, to English or west Brits he was a terrorist.

and now he's a well paid british minister that calls todays irish freedom fighters "traitors" and appeals to nationalists to give information on their neighbours and friends to the britsh/mi5 controlled psni/ruc.

Ald

Nodin wrote: »

Yes actually, I do.
http://jfjfp.com/

Alan Shatter should be treated as an individual not some representative of a hive mind.

Well done on your use of Google...

1) you said jew

Last time I checked a Jew was somebody of the Jewish belief system, not an insult.

bleg

What's gas is that it hasn't been reported that in the same breath that Shatter said McGuinnes has an exotic past (which he does) Shatter also said that ultimately the decision will rest with the electorate.

Mountain out of a mole hill.

nice_guy80

Michael D will win it anyway, especially with transfers.

Benny_Cake

Alan Shatter won't be the last FG politician to have a pop at McGuinness,the fact that he's Jewish has absolutely nothing to do with it.Naturally Fine Gael will want to boost the credentials of their own candidate,even if it is through a little negative campaigning.McGuinness gives them enough ammunition,both because of his past and his present evasiveness about it,and his stupid West Brit remarks this week.

Poccington

Personally, I feel a man in charge of the DoD is perfectly within his rights to comment on the suitability of someone who could eventually become Commander in Chief of the DF.

Zombrex

Bluefoam wrote: »

I am not pro SF by any means. But I do find Shatters behavior to be above his remit. It is up to the Irish people to decide who is or isn't suitable to be president.

And it is up to our politicians to point out issues to the people.

Did you actually read the Irish Times article? Shatter made an excellent point about the role McGuinness would have to play as President, such as welcoming the Queen, a visit Sinn Fein were deeply opposed to. McGuinness is far too political to be president and to represent the State on the international stage.

I would go much further than Shatter's comments, the idea that someone who has spent most of his life part of or supporting an organization that carried out illegal activity in the State is frankly ridiculous. McGuinness himself refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Irish Court system, according to Wikipedia.

Sir Oxman

Poccington wrote: »

Personally, I feel a man in charge of the DoD is perfectly within his rights to comment on the suitability of someone who could eventually become Commander in Chief of the DF.

That is exactly why he shouldn't - to use his own words, Mr Shatter is being most inappropriate in this instance.

Sir Oxman

Zombrex wrote: »

And it is up to our politicians to point out issues to the people.

Did you actually read the Irish Times article? Shatter made an excellent point about the role McGuinness would have to play as President, such as welcoming the Queen, a visit Sinn Fein were deeply opposed to. McGuinness is far too political to be president and to represent the State on the international stage.

I would go much further than Shatter's comments, the idea that someone who has spent most of his life part of or supporting an organization that carried out illegal activity in the State is frankly ridiculous. McGuinness himself refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Irish Court system, according to Wikipedia.

I was opposed to the British Queen's visit too - but I changed my mind.
Is she coming again then?...

Sunnyisland

headmaster wrote: »

It's very difficult for any Irish person to be spoken down to. How dare members of FG tell us the people of Ireland on the dangers of voting for ANYONE. We are very well read and don't need Shatter or Mitchell to tell us how to vote, or not to vote, in the upcoming election. One thing's for sure now and that is, FG have no chance now. As a matter of fact, Mitchel has questions to ask about his own family background, especially some of them in Holland.

This man http://www.esatclear.ie/~drugsense/news/veronica.html


And his mate fine gaels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Keating

Monty Burnz

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Its not surprising behavior from the west brit establishment elite. Its Lisbon all over again. Their scare mongering will put off alot of bubble head voters and it will be hard for him to win with all this propaganda.

This use of 'West Brit' as an insult demonstrates how serious SF are about applying parity of esteem to anyone but themselves.

Benny_Cake

realies wrote: »

This man http://www.esatclear.ie/~drugsense/news/veronica.html


And his mate fine gaels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Keating

Now personally I can't stand Gay Mitchell and I can only think that Fine Gael have no interest in this election since they picked him.But I wouldn't want to be judged on what a first cousin did!

niallers1

Wiki Definition of west brit

West Brit, an abbreviation of West British, is a pejorative term for an Irish person, usually from Dublin, who is perceived by his or her countrymen as being too anglophilic in matters of culture or politics.[1]


I think he hit the nail on the head..

Monty Burnz

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

To real Irish people he was a freedom fighter, to English or west Brits he was a terrorist.

So I'm some sort of fake Irish person? You are the judge of who is really Irish and who is not?

And then you complain about an FG minister asking whether MMG is suitable to be first citizen? Hypocritical much?